Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Can We Now Discuss This Case?
266 Answers
ABSpareEditor
I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.
I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talbot,
Last year Robinson was convicted of Contempt of Court.
The Judge was very clear in her comments. He admitted the offence and the Judge kindly suspended his sentence.
A year later he repeats the same offence in very similar circumstances. Again he pleads guilty. As it is a second offence, this different Judge is not so charitable and sends him down.
Nothing stinks about the case. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was under a suspended sentence.
Last year Robinson was convicted of Contempt of Court.
The Judge was very clear in her comments. He admitted the offence and the Judge kindly suspended his sentence.
A year later he repeats the same offence in very similar circumstances. Again he pleads guilty. As it is a second offence, this different Judge is not so charitable and sends him down.
Nothing stinks about the case. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was under a suspended sentence.
"What lies do you think the Police told? "
Just in case you have missed the many news stories of late Plod have been caught lying/hiding evidence from defence Solicitors.
So it does happen and Plod only have themselves to blame when people become suspicious when they dont.
There is something a bit odd on this case but to be honest he bought it on himself and jail was always going to happen one way or another.
Just in case you have missed the many news stories of late Plod have been caught lying/hiding evidence from defence Solicitors.
So it does happen and Plod only have themselves to blame when people become suspicious when they dont.
There is something a bit odd on this case but to be honest he bought it on himself and jail was always going to happen one way or another.
//Nothing stinks about the case//
The "stinky" charge could come from two observations: first the (some might think exceptional) assiduousness with which the police have pursued Robinson ever since his EDL days, and secondly the imposition of reporting restrictions on Muslim gang rape cases.
An easy inference from the first is that there is a political[i will to silence Robinson, and, from the second, that there is a [i]political] will to hide the scale of the problem.
The "stinky" charge could come from two observations: first the (some might think exceptional) assiduousness with which the police have pursued Robinson ever since his EDL days, and secondly the imposition of reporting restrictions on Muslim gang rape cases.
An easy inference from the first is that there is a political[i will to silence Robinson, and, from the second, that there is a [i]political] will to hide the scale of the problem.
It was ridiculous to try to suppress the news of Robinson’s imprisonment. He has many followers and supporters, and the news rapidly spread on Social Media. The protest in Whitehall by his acolytes brought it to everyones attention, but the news outlets were still gagged.
His case fell under the original Restrictions because the trial Judge dealt with him. But this was clearly a separate matter. The crime committed by Robinson was totally different than the crime in the Court case. And the secrecy and news blackout were not justified or helpful in seeing that justice is done.
His case fell under the original Restrictions because the trial Judge dealt with him. But this was clearly a separate matter. The crime committed by Robinson was totally different than the crime in the Court case. And the secrecy and news blackout were not justified or helpful in seeing that justice is done.
I have no idea why people think it is OK to publicly discuss on-going court cases.
It isnt
http://
do we or do we not have speech ? blah blah blah
no not if it interferes with the admin of justice
this has always been the case
Tommy or Shylene or whatever his name is
was previously warned about VLOGging and ignored it.
since he had a previous conviction hanging over him,
it was activated by this conviction
Oddly contempt appeals are heard by the originating judge and not any other court who decline to exercise jurisdiction so it seems that Tommy is in the slammer for the next 13 months
( this last bit I think is subject to appeal to the European courts as clearly unfair but hey ! we're leaving those cheese eating surrender monkeys and repatriating our fantastic legal system so that is not gonna get very far)
https:/
from some years ago
It isnt
http://
do we or do we not have speech ? blah blah blah
no not if it interferes with the admin of justice
this has always been the case
Tommy or Shylene or whatever his name is
was previously warned about VLOGging and ignored it.
since he had a previous conviction hanging over him,
it was activated by this conviction
Oddly contempt appeals are heard by the originating judge and not any other court who decline to exercise jurisdiction so it seems that Tommy is in the slammer for the next 13 months
( this last bit I think is subject to appeal to the European courts as clearly unfair but hey ! we're leaving those cheese eating surrender monkeys and repatriating our fantastic legal system so that is not gonna get very far)
https:/
from some years ago
It wasnt suppressed. It was postponed. The reason it was postponed was by necessity, the Judgement will have to refer to facts to do with the original trial. That is all. As soon as the jury have finished in their deliberations, it would have been released.
And it is not about protecting the defendants. It is about protecting the administration of justice. What makes it so much worse is that it was explained to TR on the last ocassion what the outcome of his actions may be. Through his lawyer he expressed naivety and apology, which seems a little disingenuous now.
And it is not about protecting the defendants. It is about protecting the administration of justice. What makes it so much worse is that it was explained to TR on the last ocassion what the outcome of his actions may be. Through his lawyer he expressed naivety and apology, which seems a little disingenuous now.
